Mosques

[AppleQueso]

I like where this thread is going

[lisalover1]

I like where this thread is going

You forgot the image!

[ZeroAX]

don't see why mosques should be banned.

I'm pretty sure there were some really evil Jews. It hardly justifies what the Nazis did.

[Limewater]

I can understand being opposed to abortion if you're taking that as your boundary (and the reasoning for that being the boundary is quite reasonable). But I cannot understand opposition to fetal stem cell research.

Yeah, that was a mistake on my part. I meant embryonic stem cells.

Here's an interesting thought. A certain segment of the populace is completely against abortion but you'll hear nary a peep from them when it comes to the separation of conjoined twins, and specifically how doctors will frequently perform the surgery in such a way as to give one of the pair the highest chance of survival. There is not a person alive who would claim a baby that has been delivered and is outside the mother's womb is anything but alive, but it's fine that doctors can decide which baby lives and which baby dies in the conjoined case. Which tells me that the majority of those against abortion are really against premarital sex and see abortion as a consequence-free way of getting out of the responsibility of parenthood.

This is an interesting point, but I don't think that your conclusion quite follows because of a few important distinctions. The first is that live conjoined twins are simply quite rare, while abortion is quite common. This leads to abortion being considered a much larger concern from a strictly utilitarian perspective. Additionally, the rarity of conjoined twins also means that the possibility doesn't really occur to most people. It's not even on their radar.

Another important distinction is that these high-risk separation cases are at least perceived to be performed only in cases where there is imminent risk of death for the children. Otherwise, from what I've seen (and I confess that I haven't devoted much time at all to this topic), separation operations are usually performed after the children have grown older and can make the decision to risk the surgery themselves.

Also, there is a strong distinction in most peoples' minds between performing a high-risk procedure and performing a procedure whose goal is to intentionally kill what they believe to be a human child. I'm sure those people would be stirred up a lot more if it were publicized that a doctor was going to intentionally kill one conjoined twin so that the other could get through life more easily.

Another important distinction is that, as you said, everyone agrees that conjoined twins are alive and human after birth. Pro-life (or anti-abortion, if you prefer) activists feel that they need to protect the unborn because a lot of people don't even view the fetuses in question as human, and feel free to terminate them at will. People don't expect the same to be done to children after birth.

So, I really don't think that your conclusion follows based upon your example. I'm sure there are some people out there who simply don't think that people should have premarital sex without consequences, but I've actually known many women active in pro-life pregnancy counseling, and they have all cared very much for the girls who come in and their unborn children.

I think a better example would be fertility clinics, but I think a lot of the lack of protest against them comes simply from lack of knowledge.

[Jrecee]

1.)Ignoring Manzanacheese's link, the origin isn't even the issue. I think it's nearly impossible to comprehend things coming from nothing and how it all started. I have no idea, but I'm not going to try to curb my confusion (spin off of Larry David's show?) by buying into some religious concept of how it all began. It's like if the apple fell on Newton's head and instead of trying to figure out why, he just went "must be an invisible antelope that lives underground and sucks things towards it" and everyone just went with that. We don't make any progress or learn anything about our world by satisfying ourselves with the easiest explanation (and one that also happens to quell our fear of death while scaring evil people into doing good, how convenient)

The antelope is a straw man argument. If it's impossible to comprehend, then a single omnipotent presence outside of timespace doesn't seem so ridiculous after all.

2.)Relevant person =/= Religion.

? I think that's what I said.

3.)I never claimed that all religious people were against contraceptives and I never claimed every religious person supports what christian missionaries are doing in africa. In fact at no point have I made any claims that my negative points about religion reflect ALL religious people.

Fair enough.

I was just showing how religious beliefs can guide people to doing stupid things.

And my point was as can anything. Sheep aren't hard to guide.

4.)Manipulation type A. Manipulation type B. I would say that if you removed one of these, there would be less manipulation in the world. Religion is manipulation type B. Just because bad things happen without religion doesn't make religion good.

It doesn't really make it bad either though. Additionally, I do not believe removing one route to manipulation would cease it. Finally, would it not then be just as acceptable to pursue other routes of manipulation?

1.) I wasn't trying to say Christianity is the equivelant of an underground gravity antelope (that would make an awesome game) although I personally think those two are at about the same level. My point was that using an explanation like "God put it there" isn't doing any good in our quest for knowledge. There's no science or logic between god existing (that's why it's called 'faith') yet people use that to explain away all their questions.

2.)You were saying that "any person can listen in on what a relevant person is saying and just subscribe to their beliefs". I'm saying religion is not relevant. Listening to a scientist who has used every ounce of human ability to figure out why we're here is not the same as listening to a preacher who is just repeating what his parents said who were repeating what their parents said who got it from a really old book.

3.)k

4.)Again, using the argument that "other things besides religion can make people do stupid things". I'm saying, remove one of those things (religion) and less stupid things will be done.

5.)I don't agree that if people stopped being religious, that suddenly some new "form of manipulation" would jump up to take its place. We're talking about something that has grown and developed over thousands of years. It is only so widely accepted because of how long it has been around, and in turn, how many people believe it. To say that if religion suddenly vanished, then some other group would pop up and rationalize not giving africans contraceptives is crazy.

[lisalover1]

underground gravity antelope (that would make an awesome game)

Well, here's something that's similar [and yes, this is a real game]:

[Dylan]

1.) I wasn't trying to say Christianity is the equivelant of an underground gravity antelope (that would make an awesome game) although I personally think those two are at about the same level. My point was that using an explanation like "God put it there" isn't doing any good in our quest for knowledge. There's no science or logic between god existing (that's why it's called 'faith') yet people use that to explain away all their questions.

2.)You were saying that "any person can listen in on what a relevant person is saying and just subscribe to their beliefs". I'm saying religion is not relevant. Listening to a scientist who has used every ounce of human ability to figure out why we're here is not the same as listening to a preacher who is just repeating what his parents said who were repeating what their parents said who got it from a really old book.

I'd argue, you're leaving out a car in the proverbial train of thought. If a God did exist, it's not unreasonable to assume that he would make his presence known at some point. People don't necessarily believe in God because they read about him in a book (though that could be the case), God is inferred because as far as we can tell, it is necessary for him to exist. Returning to the origin of the universe, the things we understand about science make life as we know it impossible to exist. We cannot see an effect like the expansion and origin of the universe without a cause. If matter and energy cannot be created, then there is no logical way that they can exist. If there is empirical evidence to support that the cell theory is correct in inferring that all cells must come from preexisting cells, then it is not unreasonable to assume that there must be something that we don't understand beyond physics and biology. The basic idea is that while an atheist infers nothing (at this time, at least), a religious person infers God, or in other words an all encompassing and immutable force that constructed reality as we understand it.

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive, otherwise there would be far less religious people.

As far as God as an excuse goes, what would another "excuse" be? A theory and an excuse are very different things.

4.)Again, using the argument that "other things besides religion can make people do stupid things". I'm saying, remove one of those things (religion) and less stupid things will be done.

What I'm saying is that religion is barely a factor at all in this. The greatest factor far and away is that people do stupid things, the stupidity originates from people. Religion is just one of many ways people can express this. Also, it can be reasoned that the people who are doing the most stupid things are again operating on augmented beliefs. This leads to the conclusion that the routes and methods of stupidity are not in themselves sources of it.

5.)I don't agree that if people stopped being religious, that suddenly some new "form of manipulation" would jump up to take its place. We're talking about something that has grown and developed over thousands of years. It is only so widely accepted because of how long it has been around, and in turn, how many people believe it. To say that if religion suddenly vanished, then some other group would pop up and rationalize not giving africans contraceptives is crazy.

I'm not saying that a new form would come up, I'm saying that the process of manipulation would persist nonetheless. If there is a portion of people who are easily manipulated, than there are multiple methods for which manipulation may occur.

The other issue is that people who are against contraceptives speak for but a small portion of the religious world. I find it unnecessary that all religion vanish over such a relatively specific issue.

[MrPopo]

People don't necessarily believe in God because they read about him in a book (though that could be the case), God is inferred because as far as we can tell, it is necessary for him to exist.

I'd argue that as far as uninformed people can tell it is necessary for a deity to exist. And I attach no perjorative to the word "uninformed"; I literally mean someone who doesn't know all the science.

Returning to the origin of the universe, the things we understand about science make life as we know it impossible to exist. We cannot see an effect like the expansion and origin of the universe without a cause. If matter and energy cannot be created, then there is no logical way that they can exist.

The thing about the Big Bang Theory is that it isn't a notion of when the universe started. It is when the current state of the universe started. As of yet we have no idea what things were like before that event (or indeed, even at that event, just a brief moment in time afterwards). For all we know right now it could be that the time line extends infinitely into the past. The key problem with using "God" as an explanation is that it discourages further inquery. It used to be that a thunder storm was "God" throwing lightning. Now we know it is a function of a charge differential between the clouds and the ground. If everyone had been happy with the "God does it" explanation there wouldn't be a furthering of scientific thought.

[Dylan]

I'd argue that as far as uninformed people can tell it is necessary for a deity to exist. And I attach no perjorative to the word "uninformed"; I literally mean someone who doesn't know all the science.

What's the science in this case? As far as I can tell, it would take something like a deity to bend, alter, or ignore the laws of physics that we understand in order to produce the necessary changes for reality to be as it is. Is there scientific study on the matter that I'm not aware of?

The thing about the Big Bang Theory is that it isn't a notion of when the universe started. It is when the current state of the universe started. As of yet we have no idea what things were like before that event (or indeed, even at that event, just a brief moment in time afterwards). For all we know right now it could be that the time line extends infinitely into the past. The key problem with using "God" as an explanation is that it discourages further inquery. It used to be that a thunder storm was "God" throwing lightning. Now we know it is a function of a charge differential between the clouds and the ground. If everyone had been happy with the "God does it" explanation there wouldn't be a furthering of scientific thought.

You'll see that I didn't refer to the Big Bang in my post (wasn't going to make that mistake twice), I'm referring to where exactly every necessary mechanism for reality as we understand it comes from (what I'm referring to as the point of origin).

As far as saying belief in God hinders progress, I believe this would be similar to if we claimed general relativity discouraged further inquiry in the matter of astrophysics. The theory is widely accepted because it provides a full explanation for the phenomenon we've observed in the universe, but I do not believe that because it has been deemed an acceptable theory that it has hindered our interest in the matter. Likewise it used to be acceptable medical practice to drain blood in order to combat disease, but people advanced past this nonetheless. Until people reach a conclusive answer, I do not believe that they will stop searching.

[Jrecee]

Even if the universe couldn't come to be without a god, even if the only way for nothing to turn into something was the result of some omnipotent being's desire, the chances of that being being (weird) one of the many religious gods that people believe in is so minute that the chance might as well not exist at all. The argument that everything has to come from somewhere does not equal man forming from mud and committing sin by eating an apple.

Next part, you're saying "religion is barely a factor in all this". Basically acknowledging that people do stupid things in the name of the religion, but not agreeing that it's widespread:

"Sixty-seven percent (67%) of women favor prayer in public schools versus 55% of men."

I'd say 61% of americans wanting to ignore the constitution and have public schools push religion on kids is widespread.

You argue that being religious is unrelated to doing stupid things for the most part. I argue that being atheist is unrelated to not doing good things. Most examples of good things done by religion can be separated from religion in the same way that stupid things done in the name of religion can be separated from religion as per your examples.

People say "our church collects donations and runs a soup kitchen". I say atheists are just as capable as collecting donations for charitable causes and running a soup kitchen. And we don't need any book to tell us to do it.

As I see it, if you remove religion you don't remove the good of humanity, but you do remove the ability for people to excuse their stupid actions by quoting a book that teaches life lessons which aren't even as good as the average story in "chicken soup for the soul"